Posted on 10/24/2005 5:45:16 PM PDT by gobucks
Without any obvious planning by a higher power, the emergence of Michael Ruse as the foremost philosopher of evolutionary theory now seems scientifically confirmable.
Even before his newest book, works such as "The Darwinian Revolution: Science Red in Tooth and Claw" (1979); "Monad to Man: The Concept of Progress in Evolutionary Biology" (1996); "Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction?" (1999); "Can a Darwinian Be a Christian: The Relationship Between Science and Religion" (2001); and "Darwin and Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose?" (2003), suggested an innate reluctance to adapt to other subject matters.
The consequence -- a formidable one amid the explosion of sages debating the merits of "intelligent design" as the "Scopes II" case leaps to front-page attention -- is that he actually knows what he's talking about. More important, he knows historic aspects of the controversy that others should be talking about before assuming the position -- cliched Red or Blue -- they favor.
Ruse, a professor of philosophy at Florida State University, makes clear that he's a strong supporter of evolution as a scientific theory. He rejects biblical literalism and intelligent design.
Evolution as worldview
Unlike many pro-evolution types, however, he agrees with creationists and intelligent-design advocates that evolution often operates as not just a scientific theory about species, but also as a worldview that competes with religion. Any fair history of evolution, Ruse says -- he prefers to call the ideological strain "evolutionism" -- reveals it to be a Trojan horse carrying an ideology of "progress" that can't be deduced from Darwin.In "The Evolution-Creation Struggle," Ruse concentrates on the cultural history of evolutionary theory. The first stage began in the mid 18th-century, he explains, when evolutionary theory amounted to a "pseudoscience" like phrenology, wrapped in exhortations about moral progress.
With "The Origin of Species" (1859), Ruse states, Darwin yanked evolutionary theory toward "professional" science by focusing on empirical evidence and suggesting an explanatory model -- natural selection in the struggle for existence -- to account for its mechanics. It required no designer, just a theory of functional development.
Where Darwin failed
What many laymen don't understand, Ruse says -- particularly secular humanists whose image of science's logical rigor exceeds that of many philosophers of science -- is that Darwin's model did not succeed in making evolution a "professional" science in the 19th century.
As Ruse details in "The Evolution-Creation Struggle," various theorists explained evolutionary change by notions as odd as "jumps" (one might label them "leaps of fate") or the inheritance of acquired characteristics.
In Ruse's tale, Darwin's strictly scientific approach to evolution was hijacked in the 19th century by the Victorian reformer Thomas Henry Huxley, who became known as "Darwin's bulldog."
A rival `church'
Huxley, Ruse argues, felt he needed to build a rival "church" to defeat archaic Anglican and Christian beliefs, and put man, not God, at the center of life.
Evolution became his "cornerstone." With the help of philosopher Herbert Spencer, who extended "survival of the fittest" thinking to social theory, Huxley promoted evolutionary thinking as a worldview hostile to sacred religious truths. Ruse cleverly capsulizes this in an analogy: Huxley was to Darwin as Paul was to Jesus.
The upshot in the 20th century, Ruse relates, was a third phase of evolutionary theory, neo-Darwinism, in which scientists brought greater coherence to it by uniting Darwinian selection and Mendelian genetics, but retained Huxley's value-laden commitment to "progress" and hostility to religion. Ruse cites Richard Dawkins as a scientist who fits that mold.
Readers eager to understand this story in its nuances should turn to "The Creation-Evolution Struggle." The book undermines the notion that the evolution/creation dispute is simply hard science versus mushy religion. Simplistically, it may be, but not simply. As Ruse shows, it's often more like secular religion versus non-secular religion, even if most of the "professional" science remains on the evolution side.
It helps if you squint...a lot.
I had a job out of town yesterday so during the drive I listened to Hovind. I've never had the opportunity to subject myself to such pain before.
"May I suggest a nice vigorous night of Curling?"
If I throw rocks, it will be at somebody.
One of the creationists here complained that we treat Hovind poorly without knowing what science knowledge Hovind actually tries to teach his sucke..flock. In the off chance that Hovind actually knows what he is talking about I decided to listen to the man. Oops. If his sermon...seminars are an indication of what he knows and teaches, I really feel sorry for the students he supposedly taught science to for thirteen years.
Besides, I think everyone needed a laugh.
ROTFLMAO!
This thread is in chat. The good stuff ia over here...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1509710/posts
Thanks! Am over there as well now. :-)
I sowwy... I shoulda pung you when I pung the others
here's a consolation gift:
http://ssshotaru.homestead.com/files/aolertranslator.html
It can actually improve some writing.
In a sense, in Mallrats, Smith analyses materialist theory; in Chasing Amy, although, he affirms textual desituationism. A number of desemioticisms concerning subsemiotic sublimation may be discovered.
IN A SENSE IN MALRATS SMITH ANALYSAS M8RIALIST TH3ORY IN CHASNG MY ALTHOUGH HE AFIRMS T3XTUAL DESITUATIONISM!1!!11 WTF A NUMBR OF DESAMIOTICISMS CONCERNNG SUBSAMIOTIC SUBLIMATION MAY B DISCOVER3D!!1!! OMG WTF LOL THEIR IF NAODIAELCTIC THEORY HOLDS DA WORKS OF SMITH R RAMINISCENT OF PYNCHON!1!11 OMG WTF ANY NUMBR OF NARATIEVS CONCARNNG TEH DIF3RENCE BTWEN R3ALITY AND SOCEITY EXIST!1!1!1 OMG WTF LOL
Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2005 Nov 10;21:247-269.Jaffe AB, Hall A.
Approximately one percent of the human genome encodes proteins that either regulate or are regulated by direct interaction with members of the Rho family of small GTPases. Through a series of complex biochemical networks, these highly conserved molecular switches control some of the most fundamental processes of cell biology common to all eukaryotes, including morphogenesis, polarity, movement, and cell division. In the first part of this review, we present the best characterized of these biochemical pathways; in the second part, we attempt to integrate these molecular details into a biological context.
APROXIMAETLY ON3 P3RCENT OF DA HUMAN G3NOME 3NCODAS PROT3INS TAHT 3ITHAR R3GULAET OR R R3GULAETD BY DIERCT INT3RACTION WIT M3MBRS OF DA RHO FMILY OF SMAL GTPAESS1!!!111 THROUGH A SAREIS OF COMPL3X BIOCHEMICAL NETWORKS THESE HIGHLY CONSERV3D MOLECULAR SWITCHES CONTROL SOME OF DA MOST FUNDMENTAL PROC3SAS OF CAL BIOLOGY COMON 2 AL EUKARYOT3S INCLUDNG MORPHOG3NESIS POLARITY MOVAMANT AND CAL DIVISION111!!! WTF IN DA FIRST PART OF THIS R3VEIW WA PRASENT TEH BST CHARACTARIEZD OF THESE BIOCHEMICAL PATHWAYS IN TEH S3COND PART W3 ATEMPT 2 INTEGRAET TH3SE MOL3CULAR DETALES IN2 A BIOLOGICAL CONT3XT!!!!!11 OMG LOL
WA PRESENT A NOV3L NONEXTENSIEV G3N3RALIZATION OF DA BOLTZMAN 3QUATION!!!!! OMG WTF WE INVASTIGAET TEH EVOLUTION OF TEH ONE-PARTICLE DISTRIBUTION IN THIS FRMEWORK!1!1 OMG LOL TEH STATIONARY SOLUTION IS EXPONENTIAL IN A NONLIENAR FUNCTION OF TEH ORIGINAL 3NERGY!!!! WTF DA 2TAL 3NARGY IS COMPOS3D USNG A GENERAL ASOCIATIEV NONEXT3NSIEV RULE!11!1 OMG WE PROPOSE TAHT FOR D3SCRIBNG TEH HADRONIZATION OF QUARK MATER SUCH RULES MAY APLY !1!111! OMG LOL
FOUR SCORA AND SEV3N Y3ARS AGO OUR FATHERS BROUGHT FORTH ON THIS CONTIENNT A NU NATION CONCAIEVD IN LIEBRTY AND DADICAETD 2 DA PROPOSITION TAHT AL M3N R CREAETD EQUAL1!!!!! NOW WA R 3NGAEGD IN A GR3AT CIVIL WAR T3STNG WHATH3R TAHT NATION OR ANY NATION SO CONCEIEVD AND SO DEDICAETD CAN LONG ENDURE!11!11!1 WE R MAT ON A GREAT BATLE-FEILD OF TAHT WAR!!!1 WTF W3 HAEV COMA 2 DEDICAET A PORTION OF TAHT FEILD AS A FINAL RESTNG PLAEC FOR THOSE WHO HERA GAEV THERE LIEVS TAHT TAHT NATION MIGHT LIEV1111!1!! WTF LOL IT IS AL2GATH3R FITNG AND PROPER TAHT WE SHUD DO THIS11!!1!! OMG WTF LOL BUT IN A LARGAR SENSA WE CAN NOT DADICAET - WE CAN NOT CONSECRAET - W3 CAN NOT HALOW - THIS GROUND!1111! OMG WTF LOL TEH BRAEV M3N LIVNG AND DEAD WHO STRUGL3D HAR3 HAEV CONS3CRAETD IT FAR ABOVE OUR POR POWER 2 AD OR DETRACT11!1 TEH WORLD WIL LITLA NOTE NOR LONG REMEMBR WUT WE SAY HERE BUT IT CAN N3VER FORG3T WT DID HERA!!!!1! WTF IT IS FOR US TEH LIVNG RATH3R 2 B DADICAETD HER3 2 TEH UNFINISH3D WORK WHICH THAY WHO FOUGHT H3RA HAEV THUS FAR SO NOBLY ADVANC3D1!111!1 OMG WTF IT IS RATHAR FOR US 2 B HARA DADICAETD 2 TEH GREAT TASK REMANENG BFOR3 US - TAHT FROM TH3SA HONOR3D D3AD WE TAEK INCREAESD DAVOTION 2 TAHT CAUSA FOR WHICH THEY GAEV DA LAST FUL MAASURE OF D3VOTION - TAHT W3 H3RA HIGHLY RASOLVE TAHT THESA DAAD SHAL NOT HAEV DEID IN VANE - TAHT THIS NATION UNDER GOD SHAL HAEV A NU BIRTH OF FREDOM - AND TAHT GOVERNM3NT OF DA P3OPL3 BY TEH P3OPLE FOR DA P3OPL3 SHAL NOT PERISH FROM DA 3ARTH!!1!1 WTF LOL
(OK Ill stop now)
somehow, I just *knew* the new toy would get played with...
It improved my sample.
If I throw rocks, it will be at somebody.
You must have been an "extra" during the filming of "Men with Brooms"......
An extra? You think I was an extra in that movie? Let me tell you. Do you remember the rock that shattered into a thousand pieces upon impact? Do you realize how hard you have to throw a rock to do that? Just who do you think threw it? Any idea? Do you? Well for your information it was not me. If you ever find out who did, let me know.
It's not the force that matters; it's the special musk of the Giant Yukon Beaver that they rubbed all over the rock before throwing it!
If they actually did some expermentation, they could be doing the work of the Lord of the Fruit Flies.
Or I could experiment with spelling chequers.
"the special musk of the Giant Yukon Beaver "
OOOOOOOOooooooooooooo
Did he evolve from the musk ox?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.